PICTURE UPDATE: Old Pontypool pub, The Masons Arms, demolished after blaze

Emergency services at the scene of a fire in the derelict pub Masons Arms in Griffithstown. Picture by Joshua Taylor

Fire crews attend the scene of a fire at the derelict Masons Arms in Griffithstown (8931021)

Fire crews attend the scene of a fire at the derelict Masons Arms in Griffithstown (8931041)

Fire crews attend the scene of a fire at the derelict Masons Arms in Griffithstown (8931079)

Fire crews attend the scene of a fire at the derelict Masons Arms in Griffithstown (8931108)

Fire crews attend the scene of a fire at the derelict Masons Arms in Griffithstown (8931144)

First published in Gwent news
Last updated
by

UPDATE: 3.55pm
Tuesday 5th August 2014

A spokesman for South Wales Fire and Rescue confirmed the building has been demolished as it was in a dangerous condition and had partially collapsed due to the fire.

The demolition contractors have ensured the site is safe and the road could be opened back up.

The fire service is working with the owners to ensure the appropriate works are carried out to complete the demolition and clear the site.

UPDATE: 8.04pm
Monday 4th August 2014

FLAMES tore through a derelict Pontypool pub tonight as firefighters battled for hours to salvage some of the building’s remains.

Fire crews were called to the former Masons Arms on Station Road in Griffithstown at 3.33pm, where they found flames on the first and second floor. The fire had also broken through the roof and damaged the adjoining building, where residents said an old betting shop used to be.

Six SWFRS vehicles from Malpas, Cwmbran, New Inn, Aberbargoed, and Cardiff Central were called to the scene, including a large hose ladder using heat recognition cameras.

Station Road was closed for several hours tonight and cars were being diverted up Kemys Street by Gwent Police.

Some houses next to the old Mason Arms were also without electricity for hours as the fire crews attempted to fully extinguish the flames.

Resident Andrew Bynt, who lives directly next door to the detached former pub, said he began smelling burning from his own house before being alerted by his neighbour of the large flames ensuing next door.

The 50-year-old said: “I went out of the house and saw the flames tearing through the building. It began in the middle part of the old pub and then carried on to the building next to it.

“It’s so sad. This used to be a thriving little pub, a great pub, but it closed four or five years ago. I have lived here all my life and it was a very popular pub with bikers in the 70s but there was never any trouble – it’s such a shame that it’s come to this.

“The police have gone in there a few times in the past because of some kids playing around, and I think there was a bit of furniture inside but I don’t know what caused it.”

South Wales Fire and Rescue Service (SWFRS) said there were no people injured but are not yet able to say how it started.

Another resident said the building was entirely boarded up with “four-inch nails” and that “nobody had been in there for years”.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:34pm Tue 5 Aug 14

displayed says...

Now they will be able to carry on their plan, simples.............
...
Now they will be able to carry on their plan, simples............. ... displayed
  • Score: 5

6:59am Wed 6 Aug 14

Robodad says...

displayed wrote:
Now they will be able to carry on their plan, simples.............

...
So Displayed, a cannabis farm catches fire and the dangerous remains are knocked down. How is that part of a master plan? I do love a good conspiracy theory, could you let me have your theory on David Cameron being a shape shifting reptile please?
[quote][p][bold]displayed[/bold] wrote: Now they will be able to carry on their plan, simples............. ...[/p][/quote]So Displayed, a cannabis farm catches fire and the dangerous remains are knocked down. How is that part of a master plan? I do love a good conspiracy theory, could you let me have your theory on David Cameron being a shape shifting reptile please? Robodad
  • Score: -5

8:35am Wed 6 Aug 14

displayed says...

http://www.torfaen.g
ov.uk/en/Councillors
AndCommittees/Meetin
gs/PlanningCommittee
/2011/07/19/Agenda/A
genda-19-07-2011.pdf


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Planning consent is sought for several external alterations to
the unit including demolition of the side extension and part of
the original structure as well as the rear section of the building and the construction of a formal car parking/ servicing area to
the south of the building.
The building would be used for retail sales on the ground
floor with a residential apartment at first floor.
The building would operate as a mini market with a gross
internal floor space of 371square metres (279 square metres for reta
il sales and 93 square metres for the warehouse). The existing building has a floorspace of 290 square metres which is split between the public house and associated floorspace (240.75 square metres)
and the residential accommodation (49.25 square metres).
The main two storey structure façade would be retained on the front elevation and a new window would be inserted to replace the existing door and window which would match the adjacent windows. A slim side
extension is proposed on the south elevation which would house glazed doors into the shop with additional glazedpanels along this elevation. At the rear there would be a larger side extension which would provide access into the warehouse.
On the north elevation, steps would lead up to the self contained flat above the shop with an enclosed private amenity area to
the north of the steps. From the rear, the ground floor would be finished in render with hipped roofs to reduce the mass with bri
ckwork at first floor to match existing.
The flat would consist of a bathroom, 2 bedrooms, kitchen/ dining room and a living room.
http://www.torfaen.g ov.uk/en/Councillors AndCommittees/Meetin gs/PlanningCommittee /2011/07/19/Agenda/A genda-19-07-2011.pdf PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Planning consent is sought for several external alterations to the unit including demolition of the side extension and part of the original structure as well as the rear section of the building and the construction of a formal car parking/ servicing area to the south of the building. The building would be used for retail sales on the ground floor with a residential apartment at first floor. The building would operate as a mini market with a gross internal floor space of 371square metres (279 square metres for reta il sales and 93 square metres for the warehouse). The existing building has a floorspace of 290 square metres which is split between the public house and associated floorspace (240.75 square metres) and the residential accommodation (49.25 square metres). The main two storey structure façade would be retained on the front elevation and a new window would be inserted to replace the existing door and window which would match the adjacent windows. A slim side extension is proposed on the south elevation which would house glazed doors into the shop with additional glazedpanels along this elevation. At the rear there would be a larger side extension which would provide access into the warehouse. On the north elevation, steps would lead up to the self contained flat above the shop with an enclosed private amenity area to the north of the steps. From the rear, the ground floor would be finished in render with hipped roofs to reduce the mass with bri ckwork at first floor to match existing. The flat would consist of a bathroom, 2 bedrooms, kitchen/ dining room and a living room. displayed
  • Score: 1

8:41am Wed 6 Aug 14

displayed says...

Robodad:
I do love a good conspiracy theory, could you let me have your theory on David Cameron being a shape shifting reptile please?

Its funny you should say that, cos:
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=9-AOfRtU
ttY

Cue X files theme...............
..
Robodad: I do love a good conspiracy theory, could you let me have your theory on David Cameron being a shape shifting reptile please? Its funny you should say that, cos: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=9-AOfRtU ttY Cue X files theme............... .. displayed
  • Score: -1

8:46am Wed 6 Aug 14

displayed says...

A report from 2011:

CONSERVATION OFFICER:
“The former “Masons Arms”
represents a significant
building to both the canal and Griffithst
own. Although currently in a run down
condition it contributes positively though
its age, architectural quality and especially
its interesting roofline. It has been identifi
ed as a significant
building on the Canal
Feasibility study and Appraisa
l, and it is likely to bec
ome a Locally listed Building
later in the year.
This proposal seeks to demo
lish part of the late 19
th
century structure as well as the
later poor quality extensions. Wh
ile there are no objections to
the latter going, it is
felt that more of the 19
th
century structure should be reta
ined, especially as the roofs
make such a significant contribution to area.
27
The proposed new extension is of monobloc
form and provides a completely blank
and dead elevation with pr
onounced horizontal emphas
is to the canal, The
blandness of this elevation w
ould be made even worse due
to the roof form which
would be visible from the towpath to an unac
ceptable extent. Not only would the flat
portion of this roof be very evident, as it is
virtually at eye level
from the towpath, but
the roof has a hipped form which is
completely alien to the area.
Nor is the principle elevati
on much better. The windows
are poorly proportioned and
the door appears to be a standard item and is co
mpletely devoid of any architectural
merit. Hipped roofs predo
minate creating a furt
her alien appearance.
The external stairs create further concern,
especially as they seem to replace a
particularly interesting feature. These ar
e poorly integrated into
the overall design
and appear to be an ad-hoc afterthought. The general scale of the development and
the way that it appears to dominate
the plot are further concerns.
Overall this is a poor scheme, which rela
tes poorly to the wider environment upon
which it would have a significant negative
impact. It is therefore recommended that
this development is refused".
A report from 2011: CONSERVATION OFFICER: “The former “Masons Arms” represents a significant building to both the canal and Griffithst own. Although currently in a run down condition it contributes positively though its age, architectural quality and especially its interesting roofline. It has been identifi ed as a significant building on the Canal Feasibility study and Appraisa l, and it is likely to bec ome a Locally listed Building later in the year. This proposal seeks to demo lish part of the late 19 th century structure as well as the later poor quality extensions. Wh ile there are no objections to the latter going, it is felt that more of the 19 th century structure should be reta ined, especially as the roofs make such a significant contribution to area. 27 The proposed new extension is of monobloc form and provides a completely blank and dead elevation with pr onounced horizontal emphas is to the canal, The blandness of this elevation w ould be made even worse due to the roof form which would be visible from the towpath to an unac ceptable extent. Not only would the flat portion of this roof be very evident, as it is virtually at eye level from the towpath, but the roof has a hipped form which is completely alien to the area. Nor is the principle elevati on much better. The windows are poorly proportioned and the door appears to be a standard item and is co mpletely devoid of any architectural merit. Hipped roofs predo minate creating a furt her alien appearance. The external stairs create further concern, especially as they seem to replace a particularly interesting feature. These ar e poorly integrated into the overall design and appear to be an ad-hoc afterthought. The general scale of the development and the way that it appears to dominate the plot are further concerns. Overall this is a poor scheme, which rela tes poorly to the wider environment upon which it would have a significant negative impact. It is therefore recommended that this development is refused". displayed
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree